On Oct 29, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Yes we do, but what prevents others from implementing own locking semantics based on direct message sends (not futures)?
What prevents me from using FFI to allocate memory that isn't managed by the garbage collector? Nothing, of course. But if I create a memory leak in this way, it's silly to blame the garbage collector.
I think the analogy is clear, but I'll be explicit... if you circumvent a future-based concurrency mechanism by implementing locking mechanisms, then it is silly to blame the futures for the deadlock that you've created.
Cheers, Josh